Leica C-Lux 3 Digital Camera or iPhone 6

<p>I've heard so much about the upgrade for the iPhone 6 camera and was thinking about getting one mainly for the use of the camera as a point and shoot. But then, I wondered if the Leica C-Lux 3 Digital Camera would be a better choice.<br>

How would they compare for a point and shoot. The iPhone 6 has so many camera apps and can become so many different cameras. Is there something to be said which makes a clear choice between the two?</p>

<p>For video & photo's, the iPhone is an amazing piece of technology.<br /> See the more than respectable <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/sample-images.htm">samples from the iPhone 5 </a><<< <em>click</em><br /> I understand the iPhone 6 is <strong>even better !</strong></p>

<p>The thing about the iPhone is that you pretty much always have it with you. Pictures are just fine, but for serious shooting I still use my dSLRs. I bought a Canon PowerShot just before I decided to get an iPhone.<br /> I've never actually used the PowerShot. :(</p>

<p>phone camera= taking pictures of the sign in the airport garage so I can find it two days later. Real Camera = what I use to take anything else, but I know, there are plenty of people who might as well be using an iPhone as a point & shoot for the type pictures they take. Probably better than the crappy Kodak Instamatic mom and dad used 40 years ago.</p>

<p>Good light without a lot of contrast...the iPhone makes a great p&s, that, as others have mentioned is likely always with you.<br>

Low light, contrasty scenes and such it pales in comparison to a decent p&s.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>phone camera= taking pictures of the sign in the airport garage so I can find it two days later. Real Camera = what I use to take anything else, but I know, there are plenty of people who might as well be using an iPhone as a point & shoot for the type pictures they take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hahahahahahahahahaha</p>

<p>There is a surprising amount of detail captured in iPhone 6 pictures. I haven't played yet with zooming, but it it clearly better than my old P&S Nikon S8100. Of course I had to throw a couple of nasty scenes at it.<img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10606590_10205078660787185_7218857237515181145_n.jpg?oh=98af62043da0c02bfc2007a696576598&oe=54F3B27B&__gda__=1420577838_16c602e00be97e4ce07914503ffe79d1" alt="" width="960" height="720" /><img src="https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10154954_10205003006895885_701231632757546144_n.jpg?oh=6567955fa746b2f0e48f463ea0453beb&oe=54BBF3CE" alt="" width="960" height="720" /></p>

<p>Not good for low light, contrasty scenes, eh?</p>

<p>Looking at comparison images on a 72 dpi or 100 dpi monitor sort of obscures the issue. If we cannot resolve all the detail who is to know if it is there or not? A little bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for atomic structures but at viewable levels.</p>

<p>Here is a shot received yesterday from a friend living on one of Quebec's more than quarter million freshwater lakes, made with his iPad. When I blow up the original it seems to withstand magnification to large print sizes, but what I see is again limited to 72 dpi rendition.</p>

<p>Maybe someone can better clarify this issue of apparent resolution as seen through our monitors. Gus?</p>

<div></div>

<p>The built in automatic HDR function on the iPhone 6 is surprisingly good. It does an amazing job of contrasty scenes and is quick i.e. it takes the two shots in immediate succession so quickly that you can't sense any delay. Probably no good for action but for general photography it is very nice.</p>

<p>There's no way I will ever buy another P&S. </p>

<p>At Photokina, Panasonic released a new phone with a "1 inch sensor". Not sure what the model is but it's worth looking up.</p>

<p>Here it is: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/the-lumix-cm1-is-the-first-android-phone-with-an-1-inch-camera-sensor-1265614</p>

<p>It also does 4K video and has a 28mm f/2.8 "Leica" lens.</p>

<p><em><strong>Jamie J.</strong></em>, that YouTube Lumix video blew me away !<br>

Like I stated before: "<em>the iPhone [type] is an amazing piece of technology</em>"<br>

<br>

<em><strong>Arthur P.</strong></em>, regardless of what shot it, that image of the "dog at lake" is fantastic...</p>

The obvious downside to a camera phone is

the lack of an optical zoom. But I think the fact

that you always have a phone in your pocket

makes up for that. The iPhone 6 also has real

optical image stabilisation instead of the digital

stabilisation more commonly found on

smartphones. All in all it's a tasty piece of kit.

<p>Well I like my Leica C but I guess I should consider a iPhone 6 when I am due a upgrade. :-)</p>

For what it is worth i was told by a person who should know that it is not the number of pixels that matter but the size of the sensor. He said no phone will ever be able to match a modern digital camera.

<blockquote>

<p>For what it is worth i was told by a person who should know that it is not the number of pixels that matter but the size of the sensor. He said no phone will ever be able to match a modern digital camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a generalisation. Basically 10 million large pixels are better than 10 million small pixels.</p>

<p>Nokia made a camera phone that was 40+ megapixels. It then took the average reading from groups of pixels to produce lower resolution images of high quality. It's image quality was comparable to that of a consumer DSLR. The downside was that it's fixed slow lens was limited and the puny sensor size meant shallow depth of field was impossible.</p>

<p>If you look at the specification of the new Panasonic camera phone that I linked to in this thread it is fairly obvious that photographs from it will be of better quality than those from most compact digital cameras.</p>